Bangladesh Finally Won A Match !!!!

[Craig]

Not funny...

But we have won at last, allahr-rahmatha!!! And to think Streak said they will dominate us for the whole series!!!

Are you orginally from Bangladesh?

Good attitude to have when you have won.

 

[Rik]

Not funny...

But we have won at last, allahr-rahmatha!!! And to think Streak said they will dominate us for the whole series!!!

Well, he's doing a pretty good job of it at the moment, unlike the rest of his team. But the weather has dominated the series more than even Streak has managed!

 

[Hasib]

Wat do u mean he is dominating... 1 out of three matches with results,yes... Bangladesh put up a fight for the other 2... winning one of 'em!!! (ar)

By the way Zimbabweans hav probs with Mahwire's bowling? Guess what? we got probs with Mahmuds

Craig, yeah i'm a Bangladeshi living in Australia.

 

[Richard]

Fluke?

The improvement of Bangladesh since Whatmore took over has been enough to suggest to me that although not a certainty, a win in this series was likely with the current Zimbabwean side.

Bangladesh's improvement since Whatmore took over?
Were you watching the England ODIs, or reading scorecards from any others?
Bangladesh might have made a few small strides in the Test-matches but in ODIs there's been no evidence at all of improvement - they've been about as abysmal in every single match in the last 5 years as any other.
That suggests to me that this win was a fluke. Zimbabwe might be poor compared to what they could be, but they're still better than Bangladesh comfortably.

 

[marc71178]

Improvement as a team is improvement. No matter what form it's in they have been improving as a team, and that can only bode well for their future performances.

 

[Richard]

Still on this, eh?
It is not the "team" that has made the improvement - it is individual players that have made themselves better at the qualities required for Test-cricket.
This does not have any bearings on their ability in the ODI game, and hence Bangladesh have not made any improvement in the hopelessness of their performances there.
Hence it was a massive fluke that they won in the game they won in.

 

[marc71178]

You always overlook the mental side of the game - that is a big part of International Cricket, and the skills required for Tests are nowhere near as different to those needed in ODI's as you make out.

 

[Richard]

Then why are there so many players who've failed at one form and succeeded at the other?
And as I've said, a bad mind can cause failure, a good mind can't make success. I don't "overlook the mental side" - I just don't misinterpret it's effects like many people do.

 

[Adamc]

By the way Zimbabweans hav probs with Mahwire's bowling? Guess what? we got probs with Mahmuds

Is this Khaled 'Best ever bowling figures by a Bangladeshi in a ODI' Mahmud? :P

 

[marc71178]

Then why are there so many players who've failed at one form and succeeded at the other?

So many?

There's many more that have succeeded in both than in one format only.

And as I've said, a bad mind can cause failure, a good mind can't make success. I don't "overlook the mental side" - I just don't misinterpret it's effects like many people do.

Oh right, my apologies - I forgot that we're all wrong and you're right.

 

[Richard]

So you think that a good mind will help someone succeed in Test-cricket if his shot-selection and technique are not up to it? If so, yes, you're wrong and I'm right as far as I'm concerned.

There have been enough who've succeeded in both forms to mean that anyone who's succeeded in one form of domestic cricket is worth a go in the other.
In international terms, you don't need to worry about that, because you've got a guide to the player's ability at the lower level. And if you ask me there are many, many county players who are good at one form of the game and not the other.
There are more than enough examples of fail-in-one-succeed-in-the-other for it not to be taken for gospel that a good First-Class player will succeed in the one-day game.

 

[Neil Pickup]

So you think that a good mind will help someone succeed in Test-cricket if his shot-selection and technique are not up to it? If so, yes, you're wrong and I'm right as far as I'm concerned.

I'd far rather take a mentally strong "lesser" player (Collingwood) than a mentally shot "better" player (Ramprakash).

 

[Swervy]

Originally posted by Richard
And as I've said, a bad mind can cause failure, a good mind can't make success. I don't "overlook the mental side" - I just don't misinterpret it's effects like many people do.



Sports Psychology,Data interpretation,Statistics,A-level English..is there no end to this mans talents

 

[Swervy]

I'd far rather take a mentally strong "lesser" player (Collingwood) than a mentally shot "better" player (Ramprakash).

indeed..an example of this being Boycott, who wasnt the most naturally talented batsman, but he was a fighter, and he had the strength to improve his technique etc...cant stand the guy myself though

 

[Richard]

Sports Psychology,Data interpretation,Statistics,A-level English..is there no end to this mans talents

There is an end and a start to everything.

 

[Richard]

indeed..an example of this being Boycott, who wasnt the most naturally talented batsman, but he was a fighter, and he had the strength to improve his technique etc...cant stand the guy myself though

Boycott had talent people are unwilling to credit him with.
His shot-selection was fantastic. Some people don't realise that this is extreme talent.
Mentally very strong, too, of course.

 

[Swervy]

Boycott had talent people are unwilling to credit him with.
His shot-selection was fantastic. Some people don't realise that this is extreme talent.
Mentally very strong, too, of course.

oh he did have talent,but he wasnt a natural in the way someone like Gower was, or even ramprakash

 

[Richard]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
I'd far rather take a mentally strong "lesser" player (Collingwood) than a mentally shot "better" player (Ramprakash).

Collingwood has enough talent to average in the mid 40s in First-Class cricket in 2001 and 2002. Mental strength clearly isn't his only attribute.
Ramprakash, once he got over his mentally shot nature, was a very good Test player as long as he wasn't made to open.

 

[Richard]

oh he did have talent,but he wasnt a natural in the way someone like Gower was, or even ramprakash

Gower had talent, but he played poor strokes with more regularity than Boycott. Hence IMO Boycott was the more talented player.
Ramprakash isn't quite as talented as either IMO.

 

[marc71178]

So you think that a good mind will help someone succeed in Test-cricket if his shot-selection and technique are not up to it? If so, yes, you're wrong and I'm right as far as I'm concerned.

If he's already succeeded in ODI Cricket, his shot selection and Technique can't be that bad.